Against proposed plans for Channel Islands Harbor redevelopment

Re: Online petition challenges Channel Islands Harbor redevelopment (May 6 issue). The Ventura County Board of Supervisors with our harbor district Supervisor Zaragoza voted in favor of giving our public harbor land to private developers. While appearing to be sympathetic to the community at the end of the day they only listen to what the Harbor Director Krieger presents and County Manager recommends. Keep in mind that Supervisor Zaragoza could have represented our District 5 with the citizen’s requests and voted against the 390 apartment complex and 25,000 sq. ft. of retail, he voted yes! It’s time to rise up and tell all of the supervisors no to apartments on our land. Vote for open public spaces. Three hundred and ninety apartments equates to a minimum of 390,000 square feet of high-rise development and at least 600 cars sharing our harbor. Is that really what you want?

Four of the 11 acres of Fisherman’s Wharf are presently not within the zoning for the wharf and are part of the boat launch. A Public Works plan amendment is required, but the developers and the harbor department speak as if this is a fait accompli.

The intersection of Channel Islands and Victoria is shared by four governmental jurisdictions. That intersection will be impacted by a Hueneme housing and commercial development already approved by the Coastal Commission, not to mention condos at Hemlock and Victoria. The intersection is gridlock during peak hours and this is well known.

Planning needs to be coordinated with all four jurisdictions. It is idiotic for each to go their own way without any care that what is done will affect the other jurisdictions.

The Silver Strand residents, trapped with one means of egress also have to contend with the all important activities of the naval base, security alerts, and possible terrorism evacuations. Then there is the use by the Port of Hueneme as a pass through for dozens of car ferries.

Residences at this intersection are the single most foolish use imaginable. It needs to attract visitors as it used to do. The harbor department and the board of supervisors have shown a lack of imagination and total stubbornness to any ideas offered that are not residential. This is waterfront property and should be open to all county residents for recreational purposes, not to mention the out-of-town visitors who keep telling us there is nothing to do there.

The Log: What’s going on at #DanaPoint Harbor? Director Brad Gross stepped aside. A county audit report revealed abuse of a hotel discount program by county employees. The Harbor Department is merging with OC Parks. Who’s in charge? How is the harbor revitalization project affected? 20 years of planning and $20 million spent but nothing to show for it. Is there more mismanagement? (Re: Dana Point Harbor director retires, coinciding with Orange County audit report, May 20 issue).

Marcos Weinstein: As the article stated, the program was in effect long before Mr. Gross arrived on his post. He may not have felt the need to change it, but this shouldn’t tarnish his stellar work at DPH. Hope he gets a great gig as he has proved to be an asset wherever he’s worked.

Thoughts on new California Fish and Game Commission hire

The Log: Valerie Termini succeeds Sonke Mastrup as executive director of the #California Fish and Game Commission. She has some experience with the Ocean Protection Council and fisheries policy. What are your thoughts on the new hire? (Re: Fish and Game Commission hires first female executive director, May 17)

David O’Matty: She needs to take a long hard look at The Salton Sea, figure a way to make it healthy. Do tilapia and shrimp farming there. This will ease the demand for commercial fishing in Southern California waters. Thin the sea lion population, reintroduce depleted fish stocks and we should be able to bring recreational to a new high.